David Boaz

On Sunday the New York Times Book Review ran a review of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution by Michael Tanner. Reviewer Jacob Heilbrunn wrote

By exposing Bush and the Republican leadership as apostates who foolishly believe big government can be employed for conservative ends, Tanner hopes to persuade the right to return to what he sees as its original ideals of limited government and individual responsibility….Tanner is a lucid writer and vigorous polemicist who scores a number of points against the Republican Party’s fiscal transgressions.

On the same day, the Washington Post Book World reviewed On the Wealth of Nations, the latest book from Cato’s H. L. Mencken Research Fellow P. J. O’Rourke. And in the Post and hundreds of other papers, George Will took note of John Samples’s new book:

According to John Samples of the Cato Institute (in his book ” The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform“), congressional Democrats began the process that culminated in criminalizing large contributions — the kind that can give long-shot candidates, such as Vilsack, a chance to become competitive. Yes, the initial aim of campaign “reforms” was less the proclaimed purpose of combating corruption or “the appearance” thereof than it was to impede the entry of inconvenient candidates into presidential campaigns. In that sense, campaign reform is a government program that has actually worked, unfortunately.

Finally, the Times Book Review also reviewed Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who spoke at Cato’s Annual Benefactor Summit a week earlier. Benefactors who attended the Summit got to hear from three authors a week before their books hit the big time. Don’t miss it next year!

In the 2006 campaign, Democrats accused Republicans of “selling access” to Congress. But now, the Washington Post reports,

Eager to shore up their fragile House and Senate majorities, congressional Democrats have enlisted their committee chairmen in an early blitz to bring millions of dollars into the party’s coffers, culminating in a late-March event featuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 10 of the powerful panel chairs.

In the next 10 days alone, Democratic fundraisers will feature the chairmen of the House’s financial services panel and the House and Senate tax-writing committees. Senate Democrats also plan a fundraising reception during a major gathering of Native Americans in the capital Tuesday evening, an event hosted by lobbyists and the political action committee for tribal casinos, including those Jack Abramoff was paid to represent.

Where is The Who now that we need them?

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

The Wall Street Journal reports: 

The big drinks makers now plan to disclose the caffeine content on the product label.

The new information will allow consumers to compare the caffeine content of various soft drinks and comes as beverage companies are introducing new supercharged drinks….

While health groups laud the move toward more labeling, some worry the caffeine disclosure might be used to encourage more caffeine consumption. “It’s conceivable that some people will choose higher caffeine soft drinks,” says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who has lobbied for caffeine labeling by soda companies.

Yes, there’s always some possibility that when you give people more information, they’ll still make their own choices. Some people consider that the nature of a free society. Others consider it a good reason to impose more and more restrictions, until people do as they’re told. No doubt we’ll soon find out which category includes Mr. Jacobson.

The Hill reports that Blue Dog Democrats are very concerned about the proper balance of powers between the president and Congress. But for a big hike in farm subsidies, they’ll forget about that little constitutional matter. 

House Democratic leaders will add nearly $4 billion for farmers to a bill funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to attract conservative Democrats concerned that the measure would wrongly constrict President Bush’s power as commander in chief.

The Democrats hope that moderate Republicans are just as malleable:

Democrats may also add money for children’s health insurance in the hope of winning the votes of Republicans such as Illinois Reps. Mark Kirk (R) and Judy Biggert (R), whose home state faces a $240 million deficit in its State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

To be fair, there’s no proof in the story that Kirk and Biggert are considering such a deal, but Republican leaders are reported to fear it.

In the civics books, they tell us that members of Congress deliberate about war, separation of powers, balanced budgets, and so on, and then make collective decisions. If you read a newspaper, though, you soon learn about logrolling and other budget games. Still, it’s one thing to trade your vote for farm pork for the other guy’s vote for urban pork; the taxpayers lose twice, but at least it’s only money. Trading your vote on a matter of life and death, which is also a fundamental constitutional issue, for a few billion in home-state pork seems entirely unbecoming to a member of the legislature of the world’s most successful republic.

USA Today writes in an editorial:

That’s one reason the proposed XM-Sirius combination, announced this week, may be the rare merger that is good for consumers.

The rare merger that’s good for consumers? That’s rich coming from the flagship newspaper of Gannett, the rapacious media conglomerate that has swallowed up the major independent papers in Iowa, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, Vermont, and other states.

Now, to be sure, USA Today did endorse the radio merger. And I don’t question the right of newspaper owners to sell their papers to Gannett. But USA Today ought to acknowledge that its parent company has been built on mergers (or takeovers) that in the eyes of critics reduced competition.

The rare merger that’s good for consumers? Mergers often benefit consumers; they can generate efficiencies and reduce costs. And the market is the best test [.pdf] of which mergers work and which don’t.

Unemployment is low, the stock market is booming, we’ve had 10 years of welfare reform — and “America’s welfare state is bigger than ever,” reports the Associated Press.

The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.

The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

Note that this story only looks at the welfare state for the poor. Far more than one in six Americans are dependent on such government programs as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and so on, as Sen. Jim DeMint has been warning for years. More than 48 million people received a Social Security check last year, for instance.

But the AP investigation does show the weakness of welfare reform after 10 years. As Cato scholars have noted, many people have left the “welfare rolls” only to remain dependent on Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, and other means-tested transfer programs.

The AP report was printed on many newspaper websites, but it didn’t appear in the nation’s largest papers. It should get more attention. Presidential candidates should be asked whether they think it’s bad that almost 50 million Americans are on welfare or welfare-related programs. What would they do to reduce dependency? And how long can a nation remain free if half its citizens are dependent on government hand-outs?

Today is the 275th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, although the federal government has instructed us to observe Washington’s Birthday (not Presidents’ Day) on a convenient Monday sometime before the actual date. There’s a reason that we should celebrate George Washington rather than a panoply of presidents. As I wrote last year:

George Washington was the man who established the American republic. He led the revolutionary army against the British Empire, he served as the first president, and most importantly he stepped down from power….

[Washington] held “republican” values – that is, he believed in a republic of free citizens, with a government based on consent and established to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.

From his republican values Washington derived his abhorrence of kingship, even for himself. The writer Garry Wills called him “a virtuoso of resignations.” He gave up power not once but twice – at the end of the revolutionary war, when he resigned his military commission and returned to Mount Vernon, and again at the end of his second term as president, when he refused entreaties to seek a third term. In doing so, he set a standard for American presidents that lasted until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose taste for power was stronger than the 150 years of precedent set by Washington.

Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

And so he was. For more on Washington, check out Monday’s podcast.

According to David Ignatius of the Washington Post,

To explain the Putin phenomenon, the Kremlin’s chief ideologue, Vladislav Surkov, recently compared him to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another president who brought his country back from economic disaster and restored its pride. Like FDR, Putin is using “presidential power to the maximum degree for the sake of overcoming the crisis,” Surkov said.

Inasmuch as FDR’s economic policies were a failure until after World War II, let’s hope that Putin and Surkov aren’t planning to emulate him too closely.

The Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski, who died in January, published an article in the February 5 New Yorker on his first trip outside Poland. Kapuscinski became a legendary foreign correspondent and travel writer, but this was his first international trip, in 1955 at the age of 23. His reminiscences are a useful reminder of the differences between capitalism and communism. Flying into Rome, he recalls:

I was dumbstruck.

The entire length and breadth of the blackness over which we had been flying was now filled with light. It was an intense light, blinding, quivering, flickering. I had the impression of a liquid substance, like molten lava, glimmering down below, a sparkling surface that pulsated with brightness, expanding and contracting. The entire shining apparition was alive, full of movement, vibration, energy.

It was the first time in my life that I had seen an illuminated city. What few cities and towns I had known until then were depressingly dark. Shop windows never shone, there were no colorful advertisements, the street lamps had weak bulbs. Who needed lights, anyway? In the evenings, the streets were deserted, and one encountered few cars.

The next day his seatmate from the airplane took him shopping in Rome.

We started making the rounds of the shops, accompanied by Mario’s wife. For me, these were expeditions of discovery. Three things dazzled me in particular. First, that the stores were brimming with merchandise, the goods weighing down shelves and counters, spilling out in colorful streams onto sidewalks, streets, and squares. Second, that the salesladies did not sit, but stood looking at the entrance; it was strange that they stood in silence, rather than sitting and talking to one another. The third shock was that they answered the questions you asked them. They responded in complete sentences and then added, Grazie! Mario’s wife would ask about something and they would listen with sympathy and attention, inclining forward with such focus that it looked as if they were about to start a race.

Now remember, this is Italy in 1955, only 10 years after its military defeat. Apparently it took only a decade for communism to produce shortages, indolence, and poor customer relations in Poland, while capitalism produced abundance and customer service in post-Mussolini Italy. Not to mention the difference in nighttime lights that anticipated today’s famous image of the two Koreas at night.

Well, that’s not exactly how they put it. Nor is it how the journalists put it. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, explained it this way:

A bill introduced by a bipartisan group of senators — Pete Domenici (R., N.M.), Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) — doesn’t mandate that group health plans cover mental illness. Instead, it requires that plans, if they cover both mental and physical illnesses, treat both with “parity,” or similar benefits, such as deductibles, co-payments and treatment limitations.

AP story here. Neither the senators nor the journalists noted that such mandates drive up the cost of health insurance. So they didn’t have to address the question of why they would be seeking to make health insurance more expensive even as they decry the number of Americans without health insurance.

But it isn’t very hard to see why mandates would raise costs. The more things an insurance policy is required to cover, the more it’s going to cost. “Mental health” is especially vulnerable to cost inflation, as it can cover so many things.

It’s great to have an insurance policy that covers everything you might possibly need. But why should everyone be required to buy a Cadillac policy? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to buy Chevrolet policies if that’s what they want? As economist Merrill Matthews notes, “There’s a range of different things states have required health insurance to cover, including chiropractors, podiatrists, nurse midwives, drug and alcohol abuse counseling, and even, in a few states, hairpieces for people who’ve had cancer treatments.” People could save money if they could buy health insurance policies that didn’t cover some eventualities, such as pregnancy or drug rehab.

But don’t worry–as soon as the Mental Health Parity Act passes, senators will go right back to criticizing insurance companies for their high prices and calling for government to make insurance “affordable” for more people.